This article was nominated for deletion on 11 April 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The article corresponding to this page is an awful piece of propaganda, and it looks like an attack page against Chávez written by a staunch opponent of his régime, one of the "Venezuelan opposition" supported heavily by the United States in an effort to thwart the popularly-supported Bolivarian Revolution and destabilize the entire country. It is appalling to know that a person chosen as executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation would write such an attack page, blatantly accusing Chávez of censorship, and supporting the "opposition". The text of the page appears to be a right-wing screed against strong democracy that is scared, and rightfully so some would say, of the consequences of an extreme right-wing movement, supported by the United States (a global superpower), to take power over the Venezuelan people. Latin American history is marked by such disastrous events. The administration of Chávez capitulates to no one except the population, which has aided the poor population in the health care, literacy, education, and media/information areas, largely due to the Bolivarian Missions. The Bolivarian Revolution is not Chávez's project, but a worldwide movement towards social change in Latin America, transcending borders, that happens to be supported by Chávez because it is his duty as a democratically-elected leader to serve the wishes of his people and nothing else. There is no doubt at all that an independent effort exists to destabilize the country and the popular movement led by none but the people of Latin America. Latin Americans have realized for all too long that they have been held under the oppression of racism, poverty, and the paucity of social justice, and have stood up to the holders of old power to bring power to the people and an end to these things.
Sue Gardner's writing of this article is an act of which the Wikimedia Foundation should be ashamed. Claims that the government is repressive of free speech, censoring the "opposition", or is hurtful to "democracy" in Venezuela, are made by those who are, in actuality, opposed to democracy. The Chávez government was elected democratically, and twice, despite attempts by U.S. mainstream media propagandists who knowingly conflate the abolition of term limits with him being "president for life". The people who are confused and targeted by the media are usually making cries of censorship when the country they love most, the United States, would have done much more than 99% of anything characterized as "repression" on the part of Venezuela's government. There are people looking for any excuse to demonize a popular social movement that is supported across Latin America by the majority of the population, for the reason that the Chávez government fulfills the demands of Venezuela's population, rather than those of USA-based companies. Venezuela is rich in oil, and nothing would please Washington more than a return to the predictable, usual cycle of AD and COPEI gaining control of the presidency. Additionally pleasing would be a US puppet who would, in essence, sell the country's natural resources to foreign oil companies that pollute the world (of the type that spilled oil at Lago Agrio in Ecuador), the environmentally-destructive logging industry, and economic globalization, as the country would plummet into destitute conditions. This article only exemplifies the same demonization, and it is of such low quality that it need not be in any kind of encyclopedia. Mohammad Mosaddeq 03:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I partially reverted changes made by a user, specifically an edit that removed the description that views presented on the site were extreme. It seemed to be an attempt at whitewashing the content on the site, much of which is highly reliant on ad hominem attacks against Hugo Chávez and his regime. The edit also removed that the criticism was right-wing, and tried to state that it was just a general forum for saying anything about Venezuela, and most of it criticizes the President. This is not true; much of what is posted crosses the line between constructive criticism and a ranting barrage of insults. Can you read Spanish? It doesn't really take a native speaker to see that this (from user "The HELPER") [1]:
"Chavista en el poder=ignorante+idiota+resentido...traidor a la partria+foca...mata viejita+vioaldor[sic] de gallina+ cura pedofilo+ladron de iglesia+hitler con esquizofrenia"
means:
"A Chavista in power (Chávez)=ignorant, hateful idiot...traitor to the fatherland, gangster, kills loved ones, violator...a pedophile, a church thief, and Hitler with schizophrenia". ... "Exixte un relación sado-masoquista en los Chavistas" is
"A sado-masochistic relation exists among Chavistas", correct?
Someone posts a large picture of what looks like a large piece of human feces in a toilet, equating it with "Chavistas", and saying "nothing more".
"Bipeds with only one neuron"
Someone posts "CHAVIZTAS":
If this is the sort of content on the site, then it's a far way from merely criticizing Chávez - it's like most Neo-Nazi boards on steroids.
-- Mohammad Mosaddeq 23:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
User:SandyGeorgia: I appreciate your efforts to make this article neutral, with which you have done a good job. But why are you trying to insinuate that Golinger is a liar, and that her accusations have been refuted? Denial is not refutation; so while I am aware that the "opposition" writers from ND denied Golinger's accusations, where has she made them before and where were they refuted? SandyGeorgia claims that Golinger is making accusations that have been "repeatedly disproven" in the past, which implies refutation. Could you provide a source for this?
Also, you added a section that repeated the claim that the ND writers denied the accusation that they were funded by the CIA, and added information of marginal and dubious relevance about a "cultural program" that they are involved in. I had already added that they deny the accusations against them; why was there a need to repeat it? Mohammad Mosaddeq 19:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Noticiero Digital. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
@ SandyGeorgia: Kind regards. I just stumbled upon this and I'm reviewing the content, but given how much time has passed and how many edits there have been, I thought it'd been easier to ask directly. What do you think could be done to solve the current cleanup tags? Best wishes. NoonIcarus ( talk) 14:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 11 April 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The article corresponding to this page is an awful piece of propaganda, and it looks like an attack page against Chávez written by a staunch opponent of his régime, one of the "Venezuelan opposition" supported heavily by the United States in an effort to thwart the popularly-supported Bolivarian Revolution and destabilize the entire country. It is appalling to know that a person chosen as executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation would write such an attack page, blatantly accusing Chávez of censorship, and supporting the "opposition". The text of the page appears to be a right-wing screed against strong democracy that is scared, and rightfully so some would say, of the consequences of an extreme right-wing movement, supported by the United States (a global superpower), to take power over the Venezuelan people. Latin American history is marked by such disastrous events. The administration of Chávez capitulates to no one except the population, which has aided the poor population in the health care, literacy, education, and media/information areas, largely due to the Bolivarian Missions. The Bolivarian Revolution is not Chávez's project, but a worldwide movement towards social change in Latin America, transcending borders, that happens to be supported by Chávez because it is his duty as a democratically-elected leader to serve the wishes of his people and nothing else. There is no doubt at all that an independent effort exists to destabilize the country and the popular movement led by none but the people of Latin America. Latin Americans have realized for all too long that they have been held under the oppression of racism, poverty, and the paucity of social justice, and have stood up to the holders of old power to bring power to the people and an end to these things.
Sue Gardner's writing of this article is an act of which the Wikimedia Foundation should be ashamed. Claims that the government is repressive of free speech, censoring the "opposition", or is hurtful to "democracy" in Venezuela, are made by those who are, in actuality, opposed to democracy. The Chávez government was elected democratically, and twice, despite attempts by U.S. mainstream media propagandists who knowingly conflate the abolition of term limits with him being "president for life". The people who are confused and targeted by the media are usually making cries of censorship when the country they love most, the United States, would have done much more than 99% of anything characterized as "repression" on the part of Venezuela's government. There are people looking for any excuse to demonize a popular social movement that is supported across Latin America by the majority of the population, for the reason that the Chávez government fulfills the demands of Venezuela's population, rather than those of USA-based companies. Venezuela is rich in oil, and nothing would please Washington more than a return to the predictable, usual cycle of AD and COPEI gaining control of the presidency. Additionally pleasing would be a US puppet who would, in essence, sell the country's natural resources to foreign oil companies that pollute the world (of the type that spilled oil at Lago Agrio in Ecuador), the environmentally-destructive logging industry, and economic globalization, as the country would plummet into destitute conditions. This article only exemplifies the same demonization, and it is of such low quality that it need not be in any kind of encyclopedia. Mohammad Mosaddeq 03:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I partially reverted changes made by a user, specifically an edit that removed the description that views presented on the site were extreme. It seemed to be an attempt at whitewashing the content on the site, much of which is highly reliant on ad hominem attacks against Hugo Chávez and his regime. The edit also removed that the criticism was right-wing, and tried to state that it was just a general forum for saying anything about Venezuela, and most of it criticizes the President. This is not true; much of what is posted crosses the line between constructive criticism and a ranting barrage of insults. Can you read Spanish? It doesn't really take a native speaker to see that this (from user "The HELPER") [1]:
"Chavista en el poder=ignorante+idiota+resentido...traidor a la partria+foca...mata viejita+vioaldor[sic] de gallina+ cura pedofilo+ladron de iglesia+hitler con esquizofrenia"
means:
"A Chavista in power (Chávez)=ignorant, hateful idiot...traitor to the fatherland, gangster, kills loved ones, violator...a pedophile, a church thief, and Hitler with schizophrenia". ... "Exixte un relación sado-masoquista en los Chavistas" is
"A sado-masochistic relation exists among Chavistas", correct?
Someone posts a large picture of what looks like a large piece of human feces in a toilet, equating it with "Chavistas", and saying "nothing more".
"Bipeds with only one neuron"
Someone posts "CHAVIZTAS":
If this is the sort of content on the site, then it's a far way from merely criticizing Chávez - it's like most Neo-Nazi boards on steroids.
-- Mohammad Mosaddeq 23:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
User:SandyGeorgia: I appreciate your efforts to make this article neutral, with which you have done a good job. But why are you trying to insinuate that Golinger is a liar, and that her accusations have been refuted? Denial is not refutation; so while I am aware that the "opposition" writers from ND denied Golinger's accusations, where has she made them before and where were they refuted? SandyGeorgia claims that Golinger is making accusations that have been "repeatedly disproven" in the past, which implies refutation. Could you provide a source for this?
Also, you added a section that repeated the claim that the ND writers denied the accusation that they were funded by the CIA, and added information of marginal and dubious relevance about a "cultural program" that they are involved in. I had already added that they deny the accusations against them; why was there a need to repeat it? Mohammad Mosaddeq 19:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Noticiero Digital. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
@ SandyGeorgia: Kind regards. I just stumbled upon this and I'm reviewing the content, but given how much time has passed and how many edits there have been, I thought it'd been easier to ask directly. What do you think could be done to solve the current cleanup tags? Best wishes. NoonIcarus ( talk) 14:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)